Whoever Invented the Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blower Should Have His Butt Kicked

[myrkul]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.

Tsk.. I never said they had no effect. I said that they do not commit crimes. Please learn to read.

[FirstAscent]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.

Tsk.. I never said they had no effect. I said that they do not commit crimes. Please learn to read.

Did I say they commit crimes? No, I did not. Thus another pointless remark on your part.

Regarding their effect: since you argue that it's the person and not the gun, then the gun must not be an important part of the equation. That is indeed what you're arguing. Thus, you don't need the gun.

[myrkul]

Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

[FirstAscent]

Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Answer this question: if 300 million guns in this country are not enough, how many will it take? 500 million? One billion? 5 billion?

[myrkul]

Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Does a hammer build a house?
Do cars drive drunk?

[FirstAscent]

Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Does a hammer build a house?
Do cars drive drunk?

Stop engaging in the pointless cliched meme driven drivel and think for yourself.

Do cars get crashed into people while driven by drunks when cars aren't driven by drunks?

Answer the question in my last post.

[myrkul]

Answer the question in my last post.

What's the adult US population?

[FirstAscent]

Answer the question in my last post.

What's the adult US population?

If you need that number to answer the question, then hunt down the number and then answer the question.

[farlack]

It is the worst thing imaginable.

The apartment building I just moved from, and one of the reasons why... one was because of the leaf blower!

2 rotations with the lawn mower, 1 weed-eater a trimmer, and the fucking leaf blower on my window at 9-10 am.. seriously nothing better to do at 10am than wake everyone up 9 times <.<

[myrkul]

Answer the question in my last post.

What's the adult US population?

If you need that number to answer the question, then hunt down the number and then answer the question.

You're a moron.

[FirstAscent]

Answer the question in my last post.

What's the adult US population?

If you need that number to answer the question, then hunt down the number and then answer the question.

You're a moron.

You were going to answer how many guns would reduce crime in the U.S. since you stated that you believe 300 million guns are not enough. But you can't answer it, can you? I believe less guns (much less than 300 million) is more appropriate, so I can't speculate as to what absurd number you think is appropriate, thus I asked you to provide the number.

Instead, all you can do is resort to insults.

[Malawi]

We've already been over chainsaws and how people aren't bothered by them. And we're clear that you think frequent regular use of a leafblower is overuse. It's also a fact that leafblowers are actually used frequently and regularly, often once a week or biweekly in suburban residential areas of single family detached homes at nearly every home in which a gardening crew is hired (which is a large percentage of homes), and up to twice a week in condo and apartment complexes and light industrial complexes and technology parks.

That is not what I have experienced. Maybee there are cultural differences on this?

[myrkul]

You were going to answer how many guns would reduce crime in the U.S. since you stated that you believe 300 million guns are not enough. But you can't answer it, can you? I believe less guns (much less than 300 million) is more appropriate, so I can't speculate as to what absurd number you think is appropriate, thus I asked you to provide the number.

Think for a second. It's not how many guns there are. it's who has them.

If you say there should be fewer, how do you propose to reduce the number?

[FirstAscent]

You were going to answer how many guns would reduce crime in the U.S. since you stated that you believe 300 million guns are not enough. But you can't answer it, can you? I believe less guns (much less than 300 million) is more appropriate, so I can't speculate as to what absurd number you think is appropriate, thus I asked you to provide the number.

Think for a second. It's not how many guns there are. it's who has them.

Regardless of who has them, the more there are, the more criminals will have them. Maybe you're the one who should be thinking hard about the path a gun takes from manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, maybe you should think about why each one of those paths was initiated.

If you say there should be fewer, how do you propose to reduce the number?

Gun permits are issued at the federal level only, where one new gun permit is issued for every three guns confiscated, or received in gun buy back programs. Nothing else. Nothing more. No exceptions.

[myrkul]

Regardless of who has them, the more there are, the more criminals will have them. Maybe you're the one who should be thinking hard about the path a gun takes from manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, maybe you should think about why each one of those paths was initiated.

Trust me, any criminal who wants a gun can get one. Gun laws only prevent law-abiding people from getting guns, or carrying the one they own, making a criminal's job easier.

If you say there should be fewer, how do you propose to reduce the number?

Gun permits are issued at the federal level only, where one new gun permit is issued for every three guns confiscated, or received in gun buy back programs. Nothing else. Nothing more. No exceptions.

And what about criminals, who by definition don't follow laws? They'll get (buy illegally, steal, or make) guns regardless of permit or not.

[FirstAscent]

Regardless of who has them, the more there are, the more criminals will have them. Maybe you're the one who should be thinking hard about the path a gun takes from manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, maybe you should think about why each one of those paths was initiated.

Trust me, any criminal who wants a gun can get one. Gun laws only prevent law-abiding people from getting guns, or carrying the one they own, making a criminal's job easier.

If you say there should be fewer, how do you propose to reduce the number?

Gun permits are issued at the federal level only, where one new gun permit is issued for every three guns confiscated, or received in gun buy back programs. Nothing else. Nothing more. No exceptions.

And what about criminals, who by definition don't follow laws? They'll get (buy illegally, steal, or make) guns regardless of permit or not.

Both of your statements here fail to acknowledge the path a gun takes from the manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, the reason a criminal can get a gun so easily is because there are 300 million of them. That number needs to be reduced, which is what I advocate. Not increased, which is what you advocate.

[myrkul]

Both of your statements here fail to acknowledge the path a gun takes from the manufacturer to criminal.

Typically, a gun is stolen from a legal owner, then sold on the black market.

Your plan ignores a simple law of economics: Supply and demand. Demand (particularly from criminals) won't be reduced by your policies, but the supply will. Coupled with a price floor (your buy-back program), you'll essentially drive a market for stolen guns. The black market price for a gun will skyrocket, perhaps even to the point where criminals are willing to take the risk of knocking over a cop for his gun, to say nothing of the ones in his cruiser.

This will, of course, result in reprisals, and even more violence on the streets. You thought the drug war was bad? Just wait til you see the gun war. (and that's without the inevitable corruption, and supposedly "destroyed" guns showing back up on the streets.)

[Foxpup]

The black market price for a gun will skyrocket, perhaps even to the point where criminals are willing to take the risk of knocking over a cop for his gun, to say nothing of the ones in his cruiser.

There's no "perhaps" about it. Here in Australia, I remember recently a police car was stolen out of a parking lot and found abandoned a few days later - minus the guns. Guns mysteriously "disappearing" from military bases is also far more common than it should be. Naturally, the gun control lobby firmly believes we can solve these problem with tighter regulation.

[myrkul]

The black market price for a gun will skyrocket, perhaps even to the point where criminals are willing to take the risk of knocking over a cop for his gun, to say nothing of the ones in his cruiser.

There's no "perhaps" about it. Here in Australia, I remember recently a police car was stolen out of a parking lot and found abandoned a few days later - minus the guns. Guns mysteriously "disappearing" from military bases is also far more common than it should be. Naturally, the gun control lobby firmly believes we can solve these problem with tighter regulation.

Well, there you go.

[Mike Christ]

There's no "perhaps" about it. Here in Australia, I remember recently a police car was stolen out of a parking lot and found abandoned a few days later - minus the guns. Guns mysteriously "disappearing" from military bases is also far more common than it should be. Naturally, the gun control lobby firmly believes we can solve these problem with tighter regulation.

I love real world examples.